Assessing the wishes of the child in regard to contact with a parent undermines those wishes

[grahamg]

I am told there are two opposing views to consider in relation to children's rights, including the right for the child to be heard and taken seriously in disputes over contact with one or other of their parents.

The first argument comes from Professor Akira Morita, and was presented at a world congress on children and young people twenty odd year ago, (I think these links show the experience and qualifications of the man):
https://eventos.fct.unl.pt/technologyassessmentandsimulation/people/akira-morita

More up to date info here:
https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/stipolicy/en/program/profile01.html

The statement I recall professor Morita made at the world congress on the child in 2000 went something along the lines of: "What the child needs is the relationship with their parent, rather than some notion of children's rights".

Hence my thread title is intended to focus attention on whether our UK family courts systems requiring court officials to determine what the wishes of the child might be in relation to one of their parents, and the oft repeated statement: "Contact is the child's right, not the parent's right" undermines the very relationship between the parent and the child.

This is because who amongst us thought when growing up "I am going to decide who my parent is", or "I am going to have to decide who my parent is"?

I am challenged by thoughts as to what I expect our family courts to do when presented with a child resisting contact with one of their parents, (one they consider "old enough, and mature enough to make decisions for themselves", two aspects they are said to bear in mind).

However, the thread topic is supposed to be whether Professor Morita is correct in his assertion that what the child needs is the relationship with the parent, rather than some notion of children's rights being applied to them in contact cases?

I'm now going to deliberately present you with a circular argument, (and see where this takes us):
"The child needs the relationship with the parent, as the relationship with the parent is what is good for the child"

For the sakes of this argument here, please avoid all references to child abuse cases would you, where in UK law a different legal standard is applied, (and it is the same standard used even when the two parents are still together, and called the "harm standard", where all kinds of investigations by the authorities are obviously fully justified).

 

[grahamg]

Some back ground reading that may help everyone, (apologies as its rather long):
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

Quote:
"The United Nations adopted an impressive “Declaration on the Rights of the Child” in 1959."
(Break)

"..., the 1989 statement also charts what the UN calls “new territory” by moving beyond protection rights to choice rights for children. According to a current UN publications catalogue, the CRC (Childrens Rights Convention) offers a “new concept of separate rights for children with the Government accepting the responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents.” One proponent, Michael Jupp, says “the Convention recognizes that children should have rights identical to adults’.” Thus the CRC takes a “quantum leap” beyond the 1959 Declaration by adopting and promoting “an autonomous view” of children’s rights that is “more based on choice than needs” of children."

(Break)
"Among the fundamental axioms of American law is the doctrine that the parent-child relationship antedates the state just as natural individual rights antedate the state in the Constitution’s political theory. Parents are not trustees who receive authority to rear their children through delegations of state power over children. Rather, as the Supreme Court held in distinguishing biological parents from foster parents, the natural parent-child tie is “a relationship having origins entirely apart from the power of the State,” while a foster placement arranged by state agents “has its source in state law and contractual arrangements.” Because of this principle, the Court has said, “the child is not the mere creature of the State,” and the social structure-partly in order to limit state power-presupposes a system of family units, not just a mass of isolated individuals who all stand in the same relationship to the state."

Agents of the state in America have thus never had authority to intervene in the child-parent relationship until they establish jurisdiction through formal proceedings: divorce-related custody issues; adoptions; findings of serious parental unfitness, neglect, abuse, or abandonment; or child misbehavior severe enough to require state intervention. Article Nine of the CRC, however, provides that children may be separated from parents when “such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” Articles Three and Eighteen add that while “parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” the “best interests of the child will be [parents’] basic concern.”

Does this mean that any parental care that falls short of serving the child’s “best interests” is sufficiently flawed to trigger intervention? Could a child trigger state intervention merely by requesting state review of the “reasonableness” of parental conduct compared to the child’s view of his or her best interests?"

(Break)
"The CRC’s developmental language reflects perfectly desirable psychological aspirations that do not (and, like hopeful but unenforceable expressions of a child’s “right” to be loved, cannot) mirror legal reality."

(Break)
"Article Sixteen establishes child privacy rights: “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence.” This limited context confers little meaning on “privacy,” an unfortunate omission in light of the growing complexity of privacy laws..... this article confers “the right to be let alone,” Justice Brandeis’ 1934 phrase that now captures the general idea of autonomous personhood."
(Break)
"This broad sense of privacy makes no explicit allowance for the role of parents, who are unavoidably involved in a child’s private world. In most contexts one could assume that a “right” to privacy runs only against the state. However, the CRC’s apparent intent to give “government the responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents” naturally raises the question whether the CRC’s interest in privacy rights for children also intends to limit parental prerogatives."

(Break)
"But some adults who want to liberate children are not as motivated by children’s interests as by their own interests-some ideological and some that merely serve adult convenience. Adults face a conflict of interest in thinking about autonomy for children. When they disengage themselves from the arduous task of rearing and teaching children in the name of increasing children’s autonomy, adults’ actual-even if not fully conscious-purpose may be to increase their own autonomy by freeing themselves from the burdens of providing meaningful care. Even worse, some pro-child autonomy claims are merely a smokescreen intended to protect the interests of adults who profit from such claims while indirectly exploiting the actual interests of children.

In addition, a growing clamor over legal rights for children may create the illusion that parents, teachers, and other adults owe children only what the law demands of them. The increased appearance of autonomy for children becomes then essentially the default position that results from reducing our sense of adult responsibility for children. The assertion that untutored, unguided children already enjoy all the autonomy they need may relieve adults of demanding obligations, but that assertion is ultimately a profound form of child neglect. Children cannot raise themselves."

"Another major concern with the autonomy-based approach of the CRC is its failure to distinguish between state paternalism and parental paternalism. By assuming a direct relationship between children and the state, the CRC could have the effect of reducing parental commitments to childrearing while concurrently increasing the dependency of children on the state. To the extent that governmental policies foster noncommittal attitudes on the part of parents, either because parents believe they have no right to give direction to their children or because they fear that in giving them direction they might meet state-supported resistance, both the children of those families and the larger society will suffer.

For most parents, the “rights” of parenthood leave them no alternative but an assumption of parental responsibility, because that responsibility, both by nature and by law, can be assumed by no one else until the parent has failed. But when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility. To undermine parental initiative is not wise when society has found no realistic alternative to it. Indeed, it may be that children have a right to policies that require parental accountability. Yet contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children. The CRC’s attitude only exacerbates this tendency.

There is great irony in the observation of Akira Morita, a Japanese legal scholar who has studied the CRC’s drafting process. Professor Morita found that after a decade of leisurely discussion, the CRC’s hastily composed 1988 draft-particularly its emphasis on child autonomy-resulted from “a hurried compilation of the then current discussions as heavily impacted by the growing momentum toward the end of the Cold War. In other words, the ‘civil rights and liberties of the child’ was a child of the ideological victory of the United States over the USSR.” In his view, the impending collapse of total state paternalism in the Soviet Union helped convince the drafters that they should accept the anti-paternalistic ideology of the CRC."

 

[grahamg]

Can someone venture an opinion about the article posted immediately above this post?

I'm my humble opinion the guy has encapsulated arguments I've tried to make literally hundreds of times, (if not thousands!), and all I seemed to find when putting forth my views was folks willing to dismiss my arguments.

I need not have bothered as obviously someone got there before me, researched the issues and understood matters far better than I could have done, and laid it all out for all to read, (with no one as yet arguing on this forum). I'm completely unaware whether refutations of the views articulated in "Abandoning children to their rights" have been made elsewhere, (but will try to look for some!).

 

[grahamg]

Here is a refutation of the main argument put forward Jonathan Hafen in the book "Abandoning children to their rights":
https://academic.oup.com/book/32625/chapter-abstract/270510194?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Quote:
"Thus, the CRC is not abandoning children to their rights, as Hafen and Hafen argue in their article, 'Abandoning Children to their Autonomy" (NB to avoid confusion as to the name of the article is Abandoning Children to their Autonomy", whilst the book is entitled "Abandoning Children to their Right").

2nd quote:
"Law is enslaved to child welfare and child development experts. The agitation of a particular identity, or a categorization based upon alleged ‘natural’ characteristics, has been carried out in the context of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., to expose the unnaturalness and difference within that category. In an attempt to explore a similar critique of the child, this chapter recruits a Foucauldian critique of power and truth/knowledge to make the argument that the category ‘child’ is not based upon a set of natural and fundamental characteristics shared by those aged birth to eighteen — the operating presumption of the child in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). If there is no universal ‘child’, on what ground do the politics behind and the power relations dependent upon the fictitious universal child in the CRC stand? To examine the CRC's child, one must start by exploring the shape of rights given to the child. When these rights diverge from the rights given (or emphasized) to all other humans, one must look at the justification that is offered."

In case you were wondering what a "Foucauldian critique" might be here is an explanation:

 

[grahamg]

Here is some more views expressed by Jonathan Hafen in his article:
http://familywatch.org/fwi/documents/HAFENHRCPaperCRCDeliveryVersion102814.pdf

Abandoning Children to Their Autonomy: Children’s Needs and the Rights of Parents in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Professor Bruce C. Hafen, Brigham Young University Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2014

Quote:
Parents as Children’s Primary Caretakers

"After reviewing a collection of the CRC committee’s observations and comments, my overall impression is that the committee is interpreting the CRC in ways that mostly seem to shift decision making about what is best for children (a) away from a child’s own country and (b) away from a child’s own parents, in favor of policy priorities adopted by the CRC committee. So, as an American parent, I hear the CRC and its committee mostly telling me that my children should follow the committee’s policy preferences rather than the reasonably differing preferences of my own courts and legislators, and certainly rather than my own judgment—because one of the CRC’s stated aims is to protect my children from my authority and power. Rather than offering demonstrable benefits for children, this shift essentially replaces one form of state paternalism for another. By its tone as well as many of its provisions and interpretations, the CRC committee also removes important incentives for parents to care about their children. This new form of paternalism may hurt children more than it helps them."

"Years of discussion about children’s rights have shown that the most important issue is who gets to decide what a given child may or may not do. Because of children’s inherent dependency, even though we all want them to become more independent as they grow and mature, someone other than the children themselves generally needs to decide what is best for them—subject, of course, to reasonable regulation. Should those primary decision makers be their parents, agents of their country, or the agents of an international organization? Which of these three options is best for children and for the future stability of the democratic societies that today’s children will become?"

 

[Pepper]

I find your own thoughts are much more interesting and fun to read, graham. Can't do reading assignments anymore, left that behind in college, oh so many years ago.

 

[grahamg]

More views opposing Jonathan Hafen's views:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...onal-privacy/CE638CA3B4AB62AFDE20F35B0E96DCCB

Quote:
"The fourth principle is that children must participate meaningfully in decision-making about their lives. In Part 4, I respond to concerns expressed by those uneasy with the idea of children as rights-bearers, that acknowledging children's decisional privacy rights will undermine parental authority and incite conflict between children and their parents, thereby justifying state intervention in the family."

(Break)
"The theory of decisional privacy that I develop in this paper is concerned with the choices that the child can make in relation to his or her possessions (property rights) and his or her body (rights over the person), consistent with the child's evolving capacities and guided by the child's parents. The child's ability to make such choices enables the child to answer the ‘practical question' of how he or she would like to live and what kind of person he or she would like to be. This question can only be answered if privacy is recognised as a distinct right or interest with unique value."

(Break)
"The theory of children's decisional privacy developed in this paper represents a radical departure from the dominant welfare model, which requires that parents act in the best interests of their children, and state intervention is justified by parents’ failure to so act. The ‘dark side’ of the welfare approach, according to Eekelaar, is that the obligation to promote and protect children's best interests also involves adults exercising the power to determine the content and nature of those interests. A children's rights approach, by contrast, imposes an obligation on parents to guide and enable children to gradually exercise and enjoy their rights independently, and also requires that parental rights and responsibilities, where exercised appropriately, be respected. The theory of children's decisional privacy, then, does indeed undermine the traditional family unit, insofar as it demands that children are not only seen, but also heard and listened to. It reconfigures the relationships between children and their parents, children and the state, and parents and the state. However, it does not advocate that children can, and must, make all decisions in all matters affecting them.

(Break)
"A children's rights approach to decisional privacy accords with a ‘situational’ perspective on shared decision-making, to the extent that it ‘recognises children's right to have a say, without necessarily having full control over decision-making’. However, a children's rights approach proposes that the protective role of the child's parents and practice professionals cannot justify restricting or interfering with a child's autonomy when the child is found to have reached a level of maturity to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her decision. The child's views must be determinative of the child's best interests in these circumstances. For adults to engage in ‘best interest-based intervention’ and effectively override the child's views of his or her best interests would be neither legally nor morally justifiable.

The evolving capacities principle under Article 5 of the UNCRC may therefore challenge parents’ perceptions of their ‘proper’ role. It may even expose parental reluctance to cede their authority on matters where they feel that they know what is ‘best’ for – and know better than – their child. But as Tobin has observed, ‘ltimately the principle of evolving capacities demands that parents concede that they are not always the sole arbiters of a child's best interests’."

(Break)
A children's rights approach to decisional privacy also encourages judges to use the UNCRC as an express legal and normative framework to guide decision-making. The UNCRC has been ratified by the UK but has been incorporated expressly by statute by Scotland only. Nonetheless, this international convention has been recognised as relevant for the purposes of resolving ambiguity in domestic legislation; guiding the development of the common law; and also to ‘proclaim, re-affirm or elucidate … the nature and scope of those fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 via the Human Rights Act 1998.

A recent study by Gilmore of the use of the UNCRC in family law cases in England and Wales found that Article 12 was most frequently cited; and that it was often used by judges and counsel to emphasise the importance of taking into account the child's wishes and feelings, and occasionally as a benchmark against which to assess domestic processes for obtaining children's views."

 

[grahamg]

I find your own thoughts are much more interesting and fun to read, graham. Can't do reading assignments anymore, left that behind in college, oh so many years ago.

Someone will have a go I'm sure, as all I've tried to argue, both the views for and against, is laid out for everyone above!

 

[grahamg]

Here is a refutation of the main argument put forward Jonathan Hafen in the book "Abandoning children to their rights":
https://academic.oup.com/book/32625/chapter-abstract/270510194?redirectedFrom=fulltext
In case you were wondering what a "Foucauldian critique" might be here is an explanation:

Wow, the guy trying to explain what "Foucauldian critique" is supposed to be really has folks like me tied in knots! (And I'm the one who "speaks in riddles" I'm told).

 

[Remy]

I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather.

My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.

 

[Knight]

Far to much to read. So I'll reduce it down to this in your 1st. post.

Quote
"What the child needs is the relationship with their parent,"

IMO at some point a child should have the right to decide with whom they want to live with. It could be with both or one or the other.

Key is the relationship. A well adjusted couple that a divorce was the best solution. For a child experiencing that as a comfortable way to enjoy both parents more than likely would fit the both category. Mal adjusted dysfunctional, abusive parenting by one or the other doesn't go unnoticed by a child.
A Case by case assessment with facts should be the criteria used when a child is asked their preference.

 

[grahamg]

I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather.
My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.

Your post is helpful to me, (as previously the case on other similar threads).
My own posts 4 + 7 above give opposing arguments to those put forward by Jonathan Hafen, (the views by a US law professor I find utterly convincing, and published in 1995).

The questions I've tried to ask myself concerning the refutation of Jonathan Hafen's assertion, (I.e. we are, or the system is "Abandoning children to their Autonomy"), is what motivates those wishing to demolish his arguments?. Oddly enough, as its mentioned in the refutation, this is a "Foucauldian critique" question.

Now why I find your posts so helpful is this, if the refutation of Hafens view has prevailed, then in my humble opinion any parent approaching the family courts is lead to behave in the way you've described your father behaving.

I'll try to explain this further in another post, as I'm still making my mind up as to what it means.

 

[grahamg]

Far to much to read. So I'll reduce it down to this in your 1st. post.
Quote
"What the child needs is the relationship with their parent,"
IMO at some point a child should have the right to decide with whom they want to live with. It could be with both or one or the other.
Key is the relationship. A well adjusted couple that a divorce was the best solution. For a child experiencing that as a comfortable way to enjoy both parents more than likely would fit the both category. Mal adjusted dysfunctional, abusive parenting by one or the other doesn't go unnoticed by a child.
A Case by case assessment with facts should be the criteria used when a child is asked their preference.

Do you mind if I leave my response to your posts with a request that you try to address the arguments put forward by the US law professor Jonathan Hafen?

Long as it is, we can probably agree those refuting the case he put forward that we have "Abandoned children to their Autonomy" have won the day, and this means or should mean the system is the better for ignoring Hafens warnings. I can't agree that the system is better, but no one will listen to me, just as it would appear a law professor has been ignored ultimately, but it would be nice to know where you find yourself in disagreement with him.

 

[Knight]

If I understand the context of your post #7 I think my post pretty much aligns with the idea that children should have a right to decide.

What is your opinion?

 

[grahamg]

If I understand the context of your post #7 I think my post pretty much aligns with the idea that children should have a right to decide.
What is your opinion?

Well, as you know I'm in agreement with professor Jonathan Hafen, and trying to ponder why his views have been refuted.

I think its very useful to have some analysis and argument that is well made, (it would be odd if a man who is a professor of law wasn't capable of making a strongly structured and logical argument, given his position wouldn't it).

So what are the points of difference between what he has stated and those refuting what he had to say?

It appears to me we're expected to accept a "new reality", (that's the main argument used against him I think?).

Hafen mentions "Love" (albeit obliquely), quote:
"The CRC’s (Childrens Rights Convention's) developmental language reflects perfectly desirable psychological aspirations that do not (and, like hopeful but unenforceable expressions of a child’s “right” to be loved, cannot) mirror legal reality."

Then there is this argument that I think gets to the heart of the differences between Hafen and those trying to refute his views, quote:
"So, as an American parent, I hear the CRC and its committee mostly telling me that my children should follow the committee’s policy preferences rather than the reasonably differing preferences of my own courts and legislators, and certainly rather than my own judgment—because one of the CRC’s stated aims is to protect my children from my authority and power. Rather than offering demonstrable benefits for children, this shift essentially replaces one form of state paternalism for another. By its tone as well as many of its provisions and interpretations, the CRC committee also removes important incentives for parents to care about their children. This new form of paternalism may hurt children more than it helps them."

The issue for those opposing Hafen therefore is to assert that there has not been policies emanating from the CRC that remove important incentives for parents to care about their children, or if they think Hafen is right and agree that there are fewer incentives for parents to care about their children, then somehow argue why this might be a good thing(?)

You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents.

Are children to think that whatever they might say or do in relation to one or both of their parents may be the subject of scrutiny by someone in authority? Are the parents to conduct their lives as though they must account for themselves at all times, and in a manner that might seem best in the eyes of someone in authority, rather than thinking for themselves what their child needs at any particular time? Are you free to object to something your child might do, if by doing so someone in authority might feel you have not followed what they think it says in the best child rearing policy booklet available?

 

[grahamg]

I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather.
My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.

Whilst not really the situation you faced (because you were given no choice), my question is are children in general taught it is okay to hate a parent who has loved you?

US family courts in some states are said to ask the question, "Which parent when given custody of the child is most likely to promote a loving relationship between the child and the other parent"?

On some occasions they are said to make orders and change the parent who has custody of the child based largely upon this one criteria I believe.

I suggested earlier that your father's negative behaviour is maybe the only sensible way to treat your own child, dreadful as it sounds, because those making judgements about you as a parent assume us all to be guilty of some kind of harm to our children, and all parents are forced to play the game by their rules.

On fathers rights forums in the UK dads are routinely told to state they abused their children even when they did not, if this gets them over the hurdle of satisfying what those court appointed officials believe you may have done, and by denying it, even truthfully you will be assumed to be refusing to own up and admit fault, or show contrition. If this is indeed the way the system works, then just imagine how much else ou have to do as a parent/father simply to be seen as okay as a dad/parent.

 

[Knight]

Seemed easy enough to me to answer the question of "What is your opinion?"
You reply with a ton of words boiling down to this.

You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents.

I wasn't asking about children's wishes I was responding to what I thought their rights should be.

The effects of family law I think we can agree are not 100% perfect but not creating some structure as a guideline IMO would be detrimental to children.

So "What is your opinion?" Do you think establishing a way to protect children is right or wrong.

 

[Nathan]

Well, looking back to when my parents split up in the mid 60s, I was given the choice of which parent I wanted to live with. I chose to stay with my mother, although I think she was hoping that I would go. I would have felt like I would be abandoning her, but my life would have been decidedly different with my Dad.

 

[grahamg]

Seemed easy enough to me to answer the question of "What is your opinion?"
You reply with a ton of words boiling down to this.
You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents.
I wasn't asking about children's wishes I was responding to what I thought their rights should be.

The effects of family law I think we can agree are not 100% perfect but not creating some structure as a guideline IMO would be detrimental to children.

So "What is your opinion?" Do you think establishing a way to protect children is right or wrong.

Although it may be of some interest to you what I may think, (and I'd suggest my saying "I find myself in almost total agreement with the law professor Jonathan Hafen" is doing just that), its fair enough isn't it for this thread to be a discussion about what experts might think, and why they disagree(?).

"Protecting children", (or using those words), indicates in the UK at least, that you're referring to the "harm standard",(a legal standard applied to all families, intact or otherwise, as its called here).

I'm not attempting to challenge that legal standard at all, and Jonathan Hafen refers to this aspect of the law and the way the CRC, (Children's Rights Convention), goes way beyond that standard, and in doing so he believes it may actually do harm to children when its applied.

That's the " nub of it".

I read in the UK newspapers almost every week stories about how poorly children seem to be coping here, and how much worse whatever problem it might be appears to be getting. Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it.

What he said may have absolutely nothing to do with this reported deterioration in the way children are progressing here, but if no one discusses what he said, "Because the world has moved on", (as Hafens detractors would have it), then how can anyone begin to improve the situation if he was right?

Apologies for long post again, and any questions you raised you don't feel I answered well enough.

 

[grahamg]

Well, looking back to when my parents split up in the mid 60s, I was given the choice of which parent I wanted to live with. I chose to stay with my mother, although I think she was hoping that I would go. I would have felt like I would be abandoning her, but my life would have been decidedly different with my Dad.

Its interesting that you were given the choice as to which parent you should live with when they split up, even in the 1960s.

Both your parents must have been considered fit to care for you, and both obviously willing to do so, (or at least not willing to say otherwise publicly).

My argument, backed up I believe by what I've read of Professor Jonathan Hafens views, is that the decision as to where you lived, once settled, shouldn't have hung over you or be readdressed unless something has gone badly wrong. You may agree that it would have been a bad thing to have your parents pulling in opposite directions as to where you should live, and constantly raising the issue(?).

I believe continually putting the children's views at the fore front of any discussions, particularly discussions initiated by court appointed officials, is harmful in itself, and ultimately has the effect of denying the child a loving relationship with at least one parent.

In my post above this one I referred to UK newspaper reports about a deterioration in the way children are professing here. Yesterday "The Times" newspaper carried a story about a sharp increase in the numbers of children being prescribed drugs because they can't sleep properly. It didn't go into the story too deeply as far as I can recall, nor suggest "trouble at home", (as it used to be called), being in any way involved. However asking the children what they might think is the matter may not be the way forward, as I'd think it most likely stability around them is what all children will need, and as Hafen does say, this should guide policy makers everywhere, (should they be listening).

 

[Lavinia]

Sorry, grahamg...I'm not going to bother reading such long posts. I'll just give my response to the headline. If one parent is more hot on discipline, while the other parent is more relaxed, then it's understandable if the child prefers not to spend time with the former. However, this is one case where the wishes of the child should be over-ruled.

 

[grahamg]

Sorry, grahamg...I'm not going to bother reading such long posts. I'll just give my response to the headline. If one parent is more hot on discipline, while the other parent is more relaxed, then it's understandable if the child prefers not to spend time with the former. However, this is one case where the wishes of the child should be over-ruled.

Dont worry, the thread topic is slowly getting a airing isn't it, and your point is well made too!

 

[grahamg]

Lets just look again at Jonathan Hafen's comments, as detailed in the link given in the second post above:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

Quote:
"In 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, without a vote, a new Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Within a year, 130 nations had accepted the CRC, and some 175 now have. The United States has not yet ratified it, but is now considering doing so.

As approvals of international human rights treaties go, this is such blinding speed that the CRC’s widespread acceptance seems surprisingly uncritical-especially for a Declaration that includes an unprecedented approach to the autonomy of children. Although it restates many time-honored UN themes about children, the new CRC would also arguably alter a number of American laws affecting families and children.

That the U.S. is not yet among the adopting nations is a curious fact, since Americans took the lead in developing the CRC’s unique provisions for child autonomy. American sluggishness might be explained by a traditional reluctance to adopt human rights treaties."

(Break)
"Not until the early 1970s did the first Kiddie Libbers appear, arguing for the first time that children “are autonomous individuals, entitled to the same rights as adults.” This assertion relied not on new evidence that young people have adult-like capacity, but on the liberationist ideology that kids are people too. This ideology drew support from Supreme Court opinions in the 1960s that recognized rudimentary constitutional rights for public school students and other children.

But child autonomy claims have not really carried the day in American law."

(Break)
"The significance of the CRC’s emphasis on child autonomy is best understood by considering the distinction between rights of protection and rights of choice for children. Protection rights, which do not depend on any minimum level of capacity, include such safeguards as the right to property, rights to physical care and security, and the right not to be imprisoned without procedural due process. Recently increased procedural protections for American children in juvenile courts, schools, and other settings are typically designed not to increase children’s personal choices but to protect children against the abuses of unchecked adult discretion. Children’s relative lack of adult capacity explains the need for such protections."

(Break)
"The CRC also clearly “acknowledges the primary role of the family and parents in the care and protection of children, and the obligation of the State to help them in carrying out these duties.” Indeed, the CRC’s Preamble describes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for [children’s] growth and well-being.” To this end, Article Five affirms “the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom.” Article Five, however, subtly but significantly limits parental rights to those that are “consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” Parental rights are thus limited to direction “of the [children’s] rights recognized in the Convention.”"

(Break)
Article Nine of the CRC, however, provides that children may be separated from parents when “such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” Articles Three and Eighteen add that while “parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” the “best interests of the child will be [parents’] basic concern.”

Does this mean that any parental care that falls short of serving the child’s “best interests” is sufficiently flawed to trigger intervention? Could a child trigger state intervention merely by requesting state review of the “reasonableness” of parental conduct compared to the child’s view of his or her best interests?

Some American proponents of the CRC argue that its “best interest” language applies only in a secondary way to child placement; that is, only when custody is already in issue or neglect has been established does a judge unavoidably face placement options. Others, however, see the CRC’s best interests standard as a primary jurisdictional test. Two Australian lawyers, Margaret Otlowski and Martin Tsamenyi, believe that under the CRC parental rights are “subject to external scrutiny” and “may be overridden” when “the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child , or where the parents are unreasonably attempting to impose their views upon mature minors who have the capacity to make their own decisions.”

This interpretation is consistent with the CRC’s apparent intent to place children and parents on the same plane as co-autonomous persons in their relationship with the state."

 

[Knight]

Apologies for long post again, and any questions you raised you don't feel I answered well enough.

Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it.

So a prediction that "may" bring harm appear to be happening.

What changes did the expert predict?

 

[grahamg]

Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it.
So a prediction that "may" bring harm appear to be happening.
What changes did the expert predict?

You're being a bit unfair here, because anyone who can read knows professor Jonathan Hafen has predicted western family law systems are "Abandoning Children to their Autonomy", (its the title of his book after all), and he has stated the following:

"...., when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility. To undermine parental initiative is not wise when society has found no realistic alternative to it. Indeed, it may be that children have a right to policies that require parental accountability. Yet contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children. The CRC’s attitude only exacerbates this tendency."

Doesnt that change strike you as being undesirable?